"Terrorism" is War Fought Against Occupying Powers

[nepenthe]

The parallel is: using civilized rational thought to explain barbaric irrational behavior. It's a common trait among the rehabilitative justice crowd as well. I happen to think Pape has taken this familiar exercise in futility to another level.

No, I don't think anyone assumes that. My personal diagnosis would be they are simply brainwashed.

Irrational, barbaric, and most importantly, brainwashed. The cult parallel. However, brainwashing entails the use of excessive regulation and/or excessive discipline to strip individuals of their self-will and to leave them vulnerable to blindly follow any instructions against their own self-interest. Furthermore, brainwashing/indoctrination generally requires that affected individuals be kept in extreme isolation from the rest of their own communities for an extended period of time, resulting in a loss of affinity to the rest of society and causing said individuals to devote themselves to the "cult" above all else without question.

Consider the suicides of David Koresh and his followers at Waco, or the religious cult Heaven's Gate at San Diego, or Movement for the Restoration for the 10 Commandments of God, or Jim Jones and his ilk, etc. The single factor that most closely binds these acts of mass suicides was the fact that these groups all lived in extreme social isolation from their own communities. Such complete isolation allowed for highly controlled, intrusive indoctrination, protected by the wall shielding the members from the effects of the society at large.

Suicide terrorism is different in that the above-referenced wall isn't present. In fact, Islamic suicide terrorists often expend great efforts to integrate themselves to society via institutions, charity work, ceremonies and rituals, and their respective local communities in turn often commend individuals who carry out suicide attacks as nationalistic martyrs. Hezbollah is a good example of a group with significant local community support - hardly an isolated cult. Same goes for Hamas. Ditto for Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. And yes, al-Qaeda as well: some of the organizations that bin Laden founded include the 3rd World Relief Agency, Mercy International, and Islamic International Relief Organization (which, aside from being corporate shells for money laundering, also do provide humanitarian work to Muslim refugees and the like). Within Saudi Arabia there was little to no debate over al-Qaeda's objection to foreign military forces in the region, and there is indeed local popular support for bin Laden and his ilk.

And why do these suicide terrorists seek to garner local popular support? Well, if they were shunned and reviled by their own community, it'd be all the more difficult for them to recruit members, find those willing to harbor them, and basically have a relatively safe hiding place from which to plan their course of action. So it only makes sense for them to try to gain some legitimacy from their brethren, and what better way to do that than to play the "nationalism" card - that they are fighting for liberation from the Zionist foreign occupiers? This isn't brainwashing, just clever propaganda - unless your argument is that they are "brainwashing" a significant segment of their communities themselves to affect the general wave of social opinion, in which case we're operating from a fundamentally different definition of "brainwashing" in the first place.

Jihadist recruiters conjure up any 'grievance' (occupied lands, the West oppressing Muslims, Israel etc.) in order to turn impressionable and disheartened Muslims into lethal instruments of hate: the modern suicide bomber. It's no different than your local KKK office during the 60s. Have you watched any video footage of these radical mosques and maddrasses or listened closely to a bin Laden infomercial? These are sermons straight out of Hitler-Jugend: they feed off man's dark side, his ancient hatreds, miseries and prejudices. I think we've seen this type of irrational indoctrination many times throughout history and it has little to do with Pape's hypothesis, other than the fact this new breed of global jihadists casually mention "occupied lands" just before they rant about Britney's miniskirt and homosexuality -- 'nationalism' one of many 'sticks' that are used to rile up the faithful.

Same issue, addressed above.

Oddly enough, the ones who do complain quite loudly about a specific country being "occupied" (al-Sadr comes to mind), do fit the Pape profile. -- which of course has nothing to do with global jihadism.

But it does have everything to do with it. Nationalism and the "occupation" argument are the perfect tools to be used as a stepping stone to instigate Anti-Western sentiments within their broader communities.

(In a way, I can understand why al-Sadr is upset and feels 'occupied' -- millions of ordinary Iraqis didn't want a thug like him or his militia running their country. As soon as the US military packs up and leaves, the "freedom fighters" will turn on their own people and slaughter thousands, sacrificing anything and anyone for their will to power. This is what happened in Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrew, the Taliban turned on their own and slaughtered more Afghanis than did the Soviets.)

And Iraq is in turmoil due to sectarian violence or civil war or whatever you call it, and the US hasn't even left yet.

Why then so many of our elite give these thugs the benefit of the doubt ("nationalists"; "freedom fighters" etc.), I have no idea. What they end up doing (and I consider Pape to fall into this category) is using the dynamics of modern western democracies in trying to rationalize ME violence, when in reality the dynamics in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be more different.

The question I would like to ask the Robert Papes is this: how many market bombs and IEDs and police station assaults on the Iraqis themselves would he consider to be the work of "freedom fighters" and "nationalists" fighting an "occupying power"?

Is al-Sadr a "freedom fighter"? I'd say he's a fraud.

Whether he is a true nationalist or a fraud is beside the point. What matters is his professed position and whether it's enough to provide him and others like him with the illusion of legitimacy. If there were no foreign occupation, the entire "nationalism" argument goes down the toilet regardless of whether that's his true position. The fact that an occupation is still in place provides suicide terrorists with the perfect excuse to stir up nationalistic sentiments and give themselves the social impetus to thrive with their Anti-Western agenda. Just one of the reasons that the Iraq debacle is considered a "cause celebre" by these guys.

Interesting hypothesis.

I think if you live in the one of the most economically depressed areas in the world (the GDP of the entire ME is less than Sweden) with the worst literacy rate, a ton of oil and corruption, and an overall socially medieval philosophy, radicalism will be a natural development.

A good read: "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty First Century" by Thomas P.M. Barnett -- a Democrat, no less.

Even if one were to accept your conjecture that radicalism would be a natural development under these conditions, it does not follow that suicide terrorism will also be a natural development thereof.

And Tunisia. Of course they do. These are terrorist acts carried out by extremists against non-"occupying powers": pure Jihadism and intolerance for anything but Islam. These attacks do not fit Mr. Pape's theory. There's some other factor at play.

Moreover, what of the tube bombings in London? Or 9/11? What "nationalistic" cause were those attacks for? The 9/11 hijackers were a mixed bag of Egyptians and Saudis, the tube bombings were "homegrown."

Their rationale has always been the same and the above is no different: withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan and stop supporting the Zionist crusaders etc etc etc. The London bombing, for instance, was exactly that, with Britain being an American ally and all. As for 9/11, the US has had troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula since the 90's, and this likely dramatically increased the chance of such an attack. Jordan/Indonesia are also allies of the US in this regard. Besides, Jemaah Islamiyah has always worked towards the creation of an independent Islamic state, so their acts of terror aren't anything different either.

If you could sit down and negotiate with bin Laden or Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, what do you suppose their demands would be? If they were candid, they'd tell you their vision of toppling moderate governments in the ME from N. Africa to Indonesia to Spain, Israel to be wiped off the map, America to convert to Islam etc. etc., and you'd get up and leave.

The question is, do you sit back and laugh at their intentions believing it could never happen, or do you take their words (and deeds) seriously and go after them?

Their first demands would be for the US to withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan etc. The could try to go beyond that and demand that the world convert to Islam or something stupid like that, but they won't, because - right - they'd get laughed at. Driving away foreign occupation is their trump card as far as "negotiations" are concerned. Take that card away and they're left with nothing that any reasonable person - including members of their own countries - would realistically agree with.

I think 9/11 made us all realize we have to change the dynamics of the ME.

Or change the approach to handling the situation. The West chose wrongly thus far.

Again, I would ask you to carefully listen to their own words and draw your own conclusions, as opposed to Pape, who seems to think he knows what's going on inside a terrorist's mind better than they do. If this isn't the epitone of arrogance I don't know what is.

Their words have been pretty consistent. Withdraw your troops, etc.

Start small. A nuclear 9/11 would definitely shake up modern civilization.

As for imposing their values and culture on us, it's already happening and it's coming through the back door of political correctness and multiculturalism....

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55417

The Danish cartoon fiasco, the flying Imams, the cab drivers in MN, Muslim cashiers at Wal-mart who refused to scan pork...the list goes on and on...



It's happening. In Europe, they're simply doing it with demographics. Ever heard of those French "Sensitive Urban Zones"?

There was a recent court ruling in Germany where a judge usurped German law in favor of Sharia Law -- giving the male (in this case) a license to beat his wife...and have multiple wives.

What about Theo van Gogh in Holland brutally murdered for making play on Islam? His crime was artistic expression.

Brilliant authors like Salmond Rushdie have been warning us for decades and we're finally waking up and realizing this is a problem -- a big problem.

To the extent that the above are problems, they are internal, political problems - i.e. not the kind to be solved via military force, and certainly not the kind to be solved via looking outward as opposed to looking inward. The current administration's approach is certainly not making things any better in this regard. Anyway, back to suicide terrorism.

Give me some examples.

Done somewhere above.

All the more reason to dispose Saddam, giving us a permanent exit strategy from that region. As long as Saddam remained in power, there was always a danger he could march his Republican Guard across the Kuwaiti (or Saudi) border again.

I do recall this was one of many of bin Laden's 'grievances' in his open Fatwa against the United States back in 1998. But then he also blasted our 'sinful' permissive culture and demanded we repent and convert to Islam.

The way I recall it, in the 90's or so bin Laden sought to declare jihad against Iraq, and felt snubbed when his Saudi counterparts instead opted for help from the US. Iraq had nothing to do with suicide terrorism that I can see, at least prior to US intervention. Again, a "cause celebre" for jihadists.

Hang on.

Prior to 9/11, no terrorist organization had killed more Americans than Hezbollah. Back the 80s, they killed hundreds of Americans in strikes on a Marine barracks and the US embassy in Beirut. They haven't attacked us since, but Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy so this could change overnight.

Right, Hezbollah attacked Americans in Beirut - Lebanon - strictly confined to their own region. That was the whole point.

Prior to al-Qaida, this was true, but bin Laden's vision changed the dynamics unleashing global jihad. al-Qaida was to be "the base" -- the umbrella under which all these Islamic splinter terror cells would unite and train for one common purpose: Jihad against Israel and the West. And so all through the 90s, thousands of terrorists from all over the region poured into Afghanistan preparing themselves for the coming war we're now engaged in across the ME -- mainly (but not exclusively) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here's a sample of what's in the Al-Qaida Operation manual

It says:

Goals and Objectives of Jihad:

• Establishing the rule of God on earth
• Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
• Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm

al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.

And there you have it -- in black and white.

And these so-called objectives are laughable - without claims of foreign occupation to fuel their fire, that is. Furthermore, these Islamic fundamentalists are so divided amongst themselves already in terms of religious sect and ideology they can't even agree with each other (Shitte/Sunni being a prime example) and they're supposed to somehow orchestrate a "global" jihad? Ridiculous. The Taliban fought amongst themselves right after the Soviets retreated, as you've mentioned before. Without a nationalistic excuse to provide themselves with a common enemy, these terrorists tend to fall apart by infighting and bickering amongst themselves.

I never said these regional conflicts were a recent phenomenon, what i said was the culture of suicide bombers (Pape's entire study and hypothesis) is a very new phenomenon, and one that appears to be expanding daily. It is also anything but 'nationalistic' -- indeed it is one of the ME's biggest international exports right now.

Interesting discussion.

In that case, one might want to examine precisely why the culture of suicide bombers is expanding daily, and go from there. Once again, it isn't enough to stop the current pool of suicide terrorists; the next pool of potential volunteers/sympathizers/2nd generation terrorists must be prevented from taking root.

 

[sd2]

Al Jolson, born Asa Yoelson in Lithuania to Jewish parents, in "The Jazz Singer" in 1927. But then you knew that. Also particularly well known for his role in black face, but let's not go into a meta-thread.

Why is it whenever you post along these lines my train of thought goes to "Wag the Dog" where the tail is wagging the dog?

Actually, Woody, I didn't know it. I actually thought the quote came from Italian Jimmy Durante (maybe because fronting the Del Mar Racetrack there is a street named after him!)

What was more interesting than anything I'd written in this thread was the discussion between Joe C and nepenthe.

Joe was somewhat less emotionally propagandistic with his contributions, which was refreshing. He apparently can discuss some matters rationally without resorting to the ad hominem.

However, nepenthe easily disposed of him. I don't remember seeing this gent on this board before, but he's obviously possessed of the mind of a dispassionate scholar - IMO he easily bested Joe, a bright but overreaching pupil being gently corrected by his professor.

The only thing I might note in partial dissent is that Iraq never directly encouraged suicide bombers or endorsed their approach, but Saddam did present the Palestinian families of those who went that route with a sum of money ($30,000 if I recall rightly). Some may consider that to be "support" of the bombers; but it does not mean that Saddam was actively abetting same, at least not due to ideology

His regime was one of the most secular in the midEast, and a guy who enjoyed booze and Sinatra while dallying with his mistress isn't likely one who'd support Islamic fanaticism or SBs. He did it to bolster his image in the Islamic world.

America/Isreal will always oppose any ME leader who rises to high prestige, prominence and power. Our support goes to opressive tyrants like Mubarak, who bascially parrot the A/I party line.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Irrational, barbaric, and most importantly, brainwashed. The cult parallel. However, brainwashing entails the use of excessive regulation and/or excessive discipline to strip individuals of their self-will and to leave them vulnerable to blindly follow any instructions against their own self-interest. Furthermore, brainwashing/indoctrination generally requires that affected individuals be kept in extreme isolation from the rest of their own communities for an extended period of time, resulting in a loss of affinity to the rest of society and causing said individuals to devote themselves to the "cult" above all else without question.

Says who? The dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is wider than the one you've put forward.

brain·wash·ing

/ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ

ɪŋ, -ˌwɔ

ʃɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hmmm...

"Originating in totalitarian countries" fits nicely into my side of the argument which is why I support prying open the middle-east and eliminating the fever swamp which breeds this radicalism -- admittedly a simple concept but far from easy, especially with incompetent leadership.

I don't want to turn this into a semantical tit-for-tat (like the one you had with lander the other day), but I submit to you 'brainwashing' has many meanings, and as I described it, 'brainwashing' just so happens to fit the cult of suicide bombers perfectly.

I'll skip the rest in order to free up space, unless you have any specific point(s) you'd like me to address.

But it does have everything to do with it. Nationalism and the "occupation" argument are the perfect tools to be used as a stepping stone to instigate Anti-Western sentiments within their broader communities.

There are always going to be 'justifications' for Jihad -- always. All Pape is doing is subtracting one, maybe two off the list. He still doesn't address the root cause of radicalism, hate and especially the social and economic backwardness of the entire region.

Ah, but this requires making moral judgments, something the "Blame America" crowd will never take part in.

A suicide bomber doesn't wake up one day and forsake his family, his own life and future, unless he recognizes his own situation beyond hopeless (the dismal economic and social conditions we talked about earlier), while simultaneously relying on the concept of a better fate awaiting him on the other side (this is where brainwashing comes into the picture).

Anyone who would make the case these Muslims are using the same line of reasoning choosing martyrdom as you and I shop for a car is nuts.

And Iraq is in turmoil due to sectarian violence or civil war or whatever you call it, and the US hasn't even left yet.

Mostly Baghdad has yet to be stabilized, the rest of the country is rather peaceful -- especially the Kurds.

Whether he is a true nationalist or a fraud is beside the point. What matters is his professed position and whether it's enough to provide him and others like him with the illusion of legitimacy. If there were no foreign occupation, the entire "nationalism" argument goes down the toilet regardless of whether that's his true position.

Yes, it does, doesn't it. But this is assuming 'nationalism' is creating the cult of destruction to begin with. This is simply not true. At the very minimum, there are multiple factors at play -- the ones Pape doesn't seem ready to address because it doesn't fit into his Chomsky view of the world.
We're dealing with a culture where a Palestinian mother straps a suicide bomb on her child and sends her/him off to kill the infidels. To blame the "occupiers" for this cult, is like saying the ghettos in East L.A. would magically dissipate if only those damn white cops didn't keep interfering in their business. Moreover, the problem is compounded when those ghetto kids are receiving outside assistance from other benevolent players. (More on this in a moment.)

The fact that an occupation is still in place provides suicide terrorists with the perfect excuse to stir up nationalistic sentiments and give themselves the social impetus to thrive with their Anti-Western agenda.

First of all, I don't accept the premise this is an occupation, and judging by the turnout in all three elections, the silent majority of Iraqis agree with me. That said, I do accept the extremists (the al-Sadrs who are ready to slaughter the people of Iraq hoping to take Saddam's place the moment we leave) would call this an 'occupation' and that there will always be suckers here or there to join the death cult movement. No doubt. Who cares. I frankly couldn't give a shit what this small minority thinks, although Pape is keen on accentuating their voices while ignoring the millions who risked their lives standing in line for hours, votingfor the first time in their life. Why? Because he believes "America wants to conquer Muslim countries."

The debate should end right there.

Despite all the violence and propaganda, democracy does tend to tilt the balance in favor of the party offering the people 'choice' -- and it is my contention most Iraqis recognize us as liberators and not occupiers.

So let us take inventory, shall we?

There are twenty-seven million Iraqis. How many are risking their lives fighting the "occupation?" Seriously, I'd like a number. Yes, every few days a bomb explodes, much like they did in Israel, but the rest of the people simply want to get on with their lives and will support whichever side they perceive to be winning -- out of their own fear and experience from the previous heinous regime.

Just one of the reasons that the Iraq debacle is considered a "cause celebre" by these guys.

So? Some of our kids gravitate toward the noise many call "gansta rap" and worship gang life. It's cool to them because their lives have no meaning.

So in the ME, it's cool to be a martyr because there's nothing else to live for.

Even if one were to accept your conjecture that radicalism would be a natural development under these conditions, it does not follow that suicide terrorism will also be a natural development thereof.

Why not? Radicalism of this nature (think the Palestinian mother, used and brainwashed by the thugs supplying the dynamite) can only grow in a swamp of such despair.

Why did Cho kill 33 people at VT? Easy. He perceived his own life to be so grim, he convinced himself becoming a mass murderer was the only way he could accomplish anything of significance and history would remember him. Pretty powerful thought process.

There's your profile of a suicide bomber -- except on a much larger scale.

Their rationale has always been the same and the above is no different: withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan and stop supporting the Zionist crusaders etc etc etc. The London bombing, for instance, was exactly that, with Britain being an American ally and all. As for 9/11, the US has had troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula since the 90's, and this likely dramatically increased the chance of such an attack. Jordan/Indonesia are also allies of the US in this regard. Besides, Jemaah Islamiyah has always worked towards the creation of an independent Islamic state, so their acts of terror aren't anything different either.

The US military has a military presence in 133 countries around the world (many of them Muslim) but for some reason, only a certain region are attracting this type of violence.

Hmmmmm....

We're not the problem.

I think the lunatics who believe the USA are 'infidels' or the Chomskyites who believe we're 'imperialists' have a brainwashing problem -- which was my original point a couple pages ago.

Their first demands would be for the US to withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan etc. The could try to go beyond that and demand that the world convert to Islam or something stupid like that, but they won't, because - right - they'd get laughed at. Driving away foreign occupation is their trump card as far as "negotiations" are concerned. Take that card away and they're left with nothing that any reasonable person - including members of their own countries - would realistically agree with.

Yes, we agree. No "reasonable person" would strap a suicide vest on their children and send them off to be martyrs. (Brainwashing, indoctrination etc.)

Or change the approach to handling the situation. The West chose wrongly thus far.

Even if you're right (and I don't believe you are), it'll never happen.

Take for example, Iran. Over the last 30 years, the USA couldn't have been more isolationist toward Iran. And here we are in 2007 on the evening of war.

Why?

On paper, 'isolationism' works great! Starve the alligator, Pape tell us, and the alligator will die. The problem is, no matter 'we' do, someone will always keep feeding the beast.

France built Saddam's nuclear reactor in Oslo, which the Israelis thankfully turned to dust; Autocratic Russia is responsible for providing the Iranians technologies their backward economy could never dream of achieving. Iran then backs their terrorist proxies to wreak havoc in the region...

It never ends...

Bottom line: Iran can't be trusted with a nuke. Why? Because Iran wants to turn the Persian Gulf into their own private lake. Why? Oil -- and power. 40% of the world's oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz, and wouldn't the Iranians love to ante up the pot the next time they decide to blackmail the civilized world.

We didn't create this mess but I can guarantee we'll be the ones cleaning it up -- and taking flack from Chomsky quarters when we are are once again the "occupiers" and the war mongers.

Whether we like it or not, we seem to be the only nation on earth that takes global security seriously. And with nuclear technology about to hit the freelance market, our involvement in the ME (and elsewhere) will only increase.

Isolationism means fighting a war on a much larger scale at a later date.

America will never be the country the Chomskyites want her to be --- NEVER! Isolationism was proven the fraud it was after WW I and was completely discredited after WW II.

Those glory years will never return -- thank God!

Their words have been pretty consistent. Withdraw your troops, etc.

Umm, who are 'they'?

And who do 'they' represent, again? Surely you're not suggesting bin Laden or al-Sadr or Nasralla represent the Iraqi or Palestinian people? I mean, what moral authority do these thugs believe they actually have? What moral authority are folks like Pape willing to give them?

You see the problem?

There's nothing to negotiate -- no long term "political solution" to be had. They're bullies who need to pushed out of the picture -- and more importantly, made an example of, until their followers internalize the fact "Jihad doesn't pay" the way their 'leaders' promised them it would.

After we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Kamikaze pilots mysteriously dried up. There goes your 'nationalism' -- straight into the humiliating ash heap of defeat.

Wars are won (and lost) not by how many casualties are inflicted or how many buildings are knocked down, but when the enemy loses his will.

The war against radical Islam will be won once the West DECIDES we're going to break the enemy's will -- however we go about it.

Shutting up idiots like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other politically opportunistic "anti-war" crayon scribblers, would be a great start!

To the extent that the above are problems, they are internal, political problems - i.e. not the kind to be solved via military force, and certainly not the kind to be solved via looking outward as opposed to looking inward. The current administration's approach is certainly not making things any better in this regard.

Depends on what time frame you have in mind and what you define as success and failure. If failure means 'sacrifice' the way the majority on the left frame it, then yes, the war has been a 'debacle.' I don't happen to share this view because I measure Iraq in relative historic terms -- and I'm not fretting about the inevitable outcome of victory and a lasting peace.

The way I recall it, in the 90's or so bin Laden sought to declare jihad against Iraq, and felt snubbed when his Saudi counterparts instead opted for help from the US. Iraq had nothing to do with suicide terrorism that I can see, at least prior to US intervention. Again, a "cause celebre" for jihadists.

Therein lies the problem with Jihadists -- they flip-flop more than John Kerry. One minute it's Iraq, next minute it's Israel, next minute it's the West's permissive culture. Again, read their documentation. We're just one of many scapegoats on the way to world domination.

Right, Hezbollah attacked Americans in Beirut - Lebanon - strictly confined to their own region. That was the whole point.

Except now the culture of suicide bombing is a globalized movement against modern civilization. Have you ever had an argument with someone that became so heated, you forgot the issue that caused you to begin arguing in the first placel?

That's what we're dealing with fighting global Jihadism -- a brainwashed culture of hate lashing out against the most convenient scapegoat (-- infidels, USA, Israel, Danish cartoons, whatever...) masking their own self-inflicted miseries. (And nuclear suicide bombers are just around the corner. What fun.)

And these so-called objectives are laughable - without claims of foreign occupation to fuel their fire, that is. Furthermore, these Islamic fundamentalists are so divided amongst themselves already in terms of religious sect and ideology they can't even agree with each other (Shitte/Sunni being a prime example) and they're supposed to somehow orchestrate a "global" jihad? Ridiculous. The Taliban fought amongst themselves right after the Soviets retreated, as you've mentioned before. Without a nationalistic excuse to provide themselves with a common enemy, these terrorists tend to fall apart by infighting and bickering amongst themselves.

Yes, the Taliban "fell apart" alright. On the contrary: our isolationism allowed them to grow more stronger and ever more powerful. Ten years of neglect and thousands of Jihadists streaming through bin Laden's training camps have brought us to where we are today.

In that case, one might want to examine precisely why the culture of suicide bombers is expanding daily, and go from there. Once again, it isn't enough to stop the current pool of suicide terrorists; the next pool of potential volunteers/sympathizers/2nd generation terrorists must be prevented from taking root.

And the way to accomplish this is simple -- simple, but not easy. Break the enemy's will and the culture of suicide bombers will dry up, just as it did with those Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Show the Islamofascists how 'uncool' Jihad truly is.

But your side doesn't want to hear the truth. Instead, it prefers the worn "Blame America" mantra (my editorial) as if our actions ("the occupiers") are feeding the alligator. Yeah, it's OUR fault! Not only is this theory patently untrue, there is almost no evidence to back it up. Pape can butcher the English language till the cows come home, backfitting his data creatively in order to construct a theory that so happens to fit his very narrow isolationist view of the world.

He's wrong. And the more people subscribe to this world view, the more lives we're going to lose on a scale few can presently imagine.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Fuck, that was too long.

 

[barman]

Yeah...burning two to three hours a day retyping fresh neocon rants visible to a couple dozen people is maybe not the most productive form of community activism.

But at least it slows down possibility that you'll actually pose your views on a notable audience.

 

[nepenthe]

Says who? The dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is wider than the one you've put forward.

brain·wash·ing

/ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ

ɪŋ, -ˌwɔ

ʃɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hmmm...

"Originating in totalitarian countries" fits nicely into my side of the argument which is why I support prying open the middle-east and eliminating the fever swamp which breeds this radicalism -- admittedly a simple concept but far from easy, especially with incompetent leadership.

I don't want to turn this into a semantical tit-for-tat (like the one you had with lander the other day), but I submit to you 'brainwashing' has many meanings, and as I described it, 'brainwashing' just so happens to fit the cult of suicide bombers perfectly.

I'll skip the rest in order to free up space, unless you have any specific point(s) you'd like me to address.

So then, as I've mentioned previously, I guess we are operating on fundamentally different definitions of brainwashing. This is a problem, because you are also referring to suicide terrorists as a "cult." Brainwashing in a "cult" is different from the kind of soft-brainwashing used by mass media and propaganda as, once again, it entails an enclosure protecting the to-be-victims from the rest of society. Cult brainwashing/indoctrination entails societal isolation, which is not the case with suicide terrorists.

There are always going to be 'justifications' for Jihad -- always. All Pape is doing is subtracting one, maybe two off the list. He still doesn't address the root cause of radicalism, hate and especially the social and economic backwardness of the entire region.

The one or two that he is emphasizing just happens to be the most effective impetus that the suicide terrorists have going for them. Whatever other causes there may be can't even get off the ground half as well without a semi-credible pretext such as nationalism, religious differences, occupation, etc. that can garner community support from their own people.

Ah, but this requires making moral judgments, something the "Blame America" crowd will never take part in.

A suicide bomber doesn't wake up one day and forsake his family, his own life and future, unless he recognizes his own situation beyond hopeless (the dismal economic and social conditions we talked about earlier), while simultaneously relying on the concept of a better fate awaiting him on the other side (this is where brainwashing comes into the picture).

Anyone who would make the case these Muslims are using the same line of reasoning choosing martyrdom as you and I shop for a car is nuts.

This is incorrect. In history, a significant percentage of suicide terrorists aren't even religious. Tamil Tigers, the leading instigators of suicide terrorism in Sri Lanka, are anti-religion for instance.

As mentioned earlier, suicide terrorists do not predominantly come from social or economic caste worse than that of their non-terrorist community members either. Many are in fact equally or better educated than the average member of their society.

Now, you could argue that societies from which suicide terrorism emanates are, on the whole, socially/economically less well-off than the U.S., but that's neither here nor there, and it doesn't explain why suicide terrorism is rampant in some poor countries while rare or non-existent in other poor countries.

Mostly Baghdad has yet to be stabilized, the rest of the country is rather peaceful -- especially the Kurds.

Yes, it does, doesn't it. But this is assuming 'nationalism' is creating the cult of destruction to begin with. This is simply not true. At the very minimum, there are multiple factors at play -- the ones Pape doesn't seem ready to address because it doesn't fit into his Chomsky view of the world.
We're dealing with a culture where a Palestinian mother straps a suicide bomb on her child and sends her/him off to kill the infidels. To blame the "occupiers" for this cult, is like saying the ghettos in East L.A. would magically dissipate if only those damn white cops didn't keep interfering in their business. Moreover, the problem is compounded when those ghetto kids are receiving outside assistance from other benevolent players. (More on this in a moment.)

First of all, I don't accept the premise this is an occupation, and judging by the turnout in all three elections, the silent majority of Iraqis agree with me. That said, I do accept the extremists (the al-Sadrs who are ready to slaughter the people of Iraq hoping to take Saddam's place the moment we leave) would call this an 'occupation' and that there will always be suckers here or there to join the death cult movement. No doubt. Who cares. I frankly couldn't give a shit what this small minority thinks, although Pape is keen on accentuating their voices while ignoring the millions who risked their lives standing in line for hours, votingfor the first time in their life. Why? Because he believes "America wants to conquer Muslim countries."

The debate should end right there.

Where to start. Actually, I'll just point out the core inconsistency of your argument in that on the one hand, you consider suicide terrorists as just a "small minority" who doesn't deserve to be given a shit about, and simultaneously you consider them as a global, synchronized, orchestrated movement that is growing daily and is keen to take over the world. Which is it?

Despite all the violence and propaganda, democracy does tend to tilt the balance in favor of the party offering the people 'choice' -- and it is my contention most Iraqis recognize us as liberators and not occupiers.

So let us take inventory, shall we?

There are twenty-seven million Iraqis. How many are risking their lives fighting the "occupation?" Seriously, I'd like a number. Yes, every few days a bomb explodes, much like they did in Israel, but the rest of the people simply want to get on with their lives and will support whichever side they perceive to be winning -- out of their own fear and experience from the previous heinous regime.

This is why suicide terrorism is effective at what it aims to accomplish: you don't NEED an inordinate number of suicide terrorists, nor do you need a majority of the citizenry fighting the battle, in order to inflict massive casualties. You only need to keep up the Anti-West sentiments and the trump occupation card in hand to garner enough levels of community support to keep thriving. The risk-to-reward ratio is much, much lower in suicide terrorism than in other forms of warfare, as well as other forms of non-suicide terrorism.

So? Some of our kids gravitate toward the noise many call "gansta rap" and worship gang life. It's cool to them because their lives have no meaning.

So in the ME, it's cool to be a martyr because there's nothing else to live for.

Why not? Radicalism of this nature (think the Palestinian mother, used and brainwashed by the thugs supplying the dynamite) can only grow in a swamp of such despair.

Why did Cho kill 33 people at VT? Easy. He perceived his own life to be so grim, he convinced himself becoming a mass murderer was the only way he could accomplish anything of significance and history would remember him. Pretty powerful thought process.

There's your profile of a suicide bomber -- except on a much larger scale.

You keep on comparing suicide terrorism to other forms of suicide despite the distinctions I keep drawing amongst them. The VT incident has *no* support from the surrounding community, be it American, Asian, or otherwise. No one calls him a martyr. Everyone condemns his actions. He wasn't dying for a nationalistic cause, nor did he even claim he was dying for a nationalistic cause. He wasn't fighting against any foreign occupation, nor did he claim that a foreign occupation was in place.

That's the whole point. The VT incident involved pure madness with no support from anyone. The perpetrator was completely isolated. By contrast, suicide terrorism involves method to its madness. Suicide terrorists aren't isolated from their society. I've already given numerous examples of this previously. They are often hailed as martyrs by their own people.

The US military has a military presence in 133 countries around the world (many of them Muslim) but for some reason, only a certain region are attracting this type of violence.

Hmmmmm....

We're not the problem.

I think the lunatics who believe the USA are 'infidels' or the Chomskyites who believe we're 'imperialists' have a brainwashing problem -- which was my original point a couple pages ago.

Strawman. Just because military presence isn't necessarily causing suicide terrorism to skyrocket in every one of those countries doesn't mean that military presence isn't a cardinal factor in countries where suicide terrorism does occur. This doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons involved; it only means that it doesn't disprove foreign occupation as a prime impetus for same.

Yes, we agree. No "reasonable person" would strap a suicide vest on their children and send them off to be martyrs. (Brainwashing, indoctrination etc.)

Again, different definitions of brainwashing. See above.

Even if you're right (and I don't believe you are), it'll never happen.

Take for example, Iran. Over the last 30 years, the USA couldn't have been more isolationist toward Iran. And here we are in 2007 on the evening of war.

Why?

On paper, 'isolationism' works great! Starve the alligator, Pape tell us, and the alligator will die. The problem is, no matter 'we' do, someone will always keep feeding the beast.

France built Saddam's nuclear reactor in Oslo, which the Israelis thankfully turned to dust; Autocratic Russia is responsible for providing the Iranians technologies their backward economy could never dream of achieving. Iran then backs their terrorist proxies to wreak havoc in the region...

It never ends...

Bottom line: Iran can't be trusted with a nuke. Why? Because Iran wants to turn the Persian Gulf into their own private lake. Why? Oil -- and power. 40% of the world's oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz, and wouldn't the Iranians love to ante up the pot the next time they decide to blackmail the civilized world.

Hmm. I thought the topic was suicide terrorism, not nukes. The causes for Iran's expanding influence in the region, the nuke issue etc. could be another topic for another time, but for the sake of keeping on topic, I'll move along.

We didn't create this mess but I can guarantee we'll be the ones cleaning it up -- and taking flack from Chomsky quarters when we are are once again the "occupiers" and the war mongers.

Whether we like it or not, we seem to be the only nation on earth that takes global security seriously. And with nuclear technology about to hit the freelance market, our involvement in the ME (and elsewhere) will only increase.

Isolationism means fighting a war on a much larger scale at a later date.

America will never be the country the Chomskyites want her to be --- NEVER! Isolationism was proven the fraud it was after WW I and was completely discredited after WW II.

Those glory years will never return -- thank God!

I don't think Pape ever promoted "isolationism" as a policy. I don't know or care about Chomsky, and I'm not talking about him in any case.

Umm, who are 'they'?
And who do 'they' represent, again? Surely you're not suggesting bin Laden or al-Sadr or Nasralla represent the Iraqi or Palestinian people? I mean, what moral authority do these thugs believe they actually have? What moral authority are folks like Pape willing to give them?

You see the problem?

This is the segment of your previous post I was responding to:

Again, I would ask you to carefully listen to their own words and draw your own conclusions, as opposed to Pape, who seems to think he knows what's going on inside a terrorist's mind better than they do. If this isn't the epitone of arrogance I don't know what is. (emphasis added)

So whoever you meant by "their" in your own quote, are obviously the same groups of people I'm referring to. Let's keep on track here.

There's nothing to negotiate -- no long term "political solution" to be had. They're bullies who need to pushed out of the picture -- and more importantly, made an example of, until their followers internalize the fact "Jihad doesn't pay" the way their 'leaders' promised them it would.

After we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Kamikaze pilots mysteriously dried up. There goes your 'nationalism' -- straight into the humiliating ash heap of defeat.

Wars are won (and lost) not by how many casualties are inflicted or how many buildings are knocked down, but when the enemy loses his will.

The war against radical Islam will be won once the West DECIDES we're going to break the enemy's will -- however we go about it.

So nuking the region is your answer, just like we nuked Japan. Ok, at least that's consistent on its face..with the emphasis on the last three words.

Shutting up idiots like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other politically opportunistic "anti-war" crayon scribblers, would be a great start!

Depends on what time frame you have in mind and what you define as success and failure. If failure means 'sacrifice' the way the majority on the left frame it, then yes, the war has been a 'debacle.' I don't happen to share this view because I measure Iraq in relative historic terms -- and I'm not fretting about the inevitable outcome of victory and a lasting peace.

Not sure what you're responding to here. I never used the word "sacrifice," and I was responding to your examples of social/political problems faced by some Western countries and its allies due to Islam. Not that that's relevant to the topic at hand, but the point has been made.

Therein lies the problem with Jihadists -- they flip-flop more than John Kerry. One minute it's Iraq, next minute it's Israel, next minute it's the West's permissive culture. Again, read their documentation. We're just one of many scapegoats on the way to world domination.

Eh. bin Laden and his ilk were never friends with Saddam and isn't now even after his death. And I'll say again - different factions of suicide terrorists have been working independently of each other in different parts of the region, minding their own little nationalistic agendas - but not acting as a monolithic whole nor acting in concert.

Except now the culture of suicide bombing is a globalized movement against modern civilization. Have you ever had an argument with someone that became so heated, you forgot the issue that caused you to begin arguing in the first placel?

See above, see my previous post, etc. regarding this. I've addressed this already.

That's what we're dealing with fighting global Jihadism -- a brainwashed culture of hate lashing out against the most convenient scapegoat (-- infidels, USA, Israel, Danish cartoons, whatever...) masking their own self-inflicted miseries. (And nuclear suicide bombers are just around the corner. What fun.)

It's becoming more apparent that you consider the whole Islamic society as having been brainwashed, as you call it a "brainwashed culture." Notwithstanding the dichotomy of a brainwashed "cult" (as you've used the word previously) and a brainwashed "culture," you seem favorable to the idea of nuking them all for this very reason. If so, ok.

Yes, the Taliban "fell apart" alright. On the contrary: our isolationism allowed them to grow more stronger and ever more powerful. Ten years of neglect and thousands of Jihadists streaming through bin Laden's training camps have brought us to where we are today.

This is getting a bit too tangential and I want to stay on topic, but I will say this. I will agree that there was "neglect" to the extent that the US did not fully consider the ramifications of the Soviet withdrawal and the weaponry/resources that were left in Afghanistan. The hot topic of the time included the Soviet collapse, unification of Germany, whether America needs "Intelligence" anymore (they actually had a kind of symposium on this once as I recall). At the same time, military troops continued to be stationed around the region, fueling the flames of terrorism and providing to-be-suicide terrorists with the perfect pretext to continue their resistance. This is not a very good combination for preventing an event like 9/11 - the odds of such an attack likely increased twenty-fold for this very reason.

And the way to accomplish this is simple -- simple, but not easy. Break the enemy's will and the culture of suicide bombers will dry up, just as it did with those Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Show the Islamofascists how 'uncool' Jihad truly is.

And would I be safe to take this as one last confirmation of the nuke-em-all strategy?

But your side doesn't want to hear the truth. Instead, it prefers the worn "Blame America" mantra (my editorial) as if our actions ("the occupiers") are feeding the alligator. Yeah, it's OUR fault! Not only is this theory patently untrue, there is almost no evidence to back it up. Pape can butcher the English language till the cows come home, backfitting his data creatively in order to construct a theory that so happens to fit his very narrow isolationist view of the world.

He's wrong. And the more people subscribe to this world view, the more lives we're going to lose on a scale few can presently imagine.

Again, Pape never mentioned isolationism in his book, and nobody said anything about blaming America.

Basically you haven't objected to my assertion that it isn't enough to stop the current suicide terrorists, but the future pool of potential recruits/sympathizers/volunteers must be prevented from taking place. So the only question is how to go about it. Your view, as you've mentioned several times above, seems to be centered upon doing to the "brainwashed [Muslim] culture" what we did to the Japanese @ Hiroshima. And I take it that you see no problems with this approach.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Nepenthe,

I have a friend who used to date a Palestinian girl. (And yes, he really is a friend.) For three years, he never got a chance to meet her father because had he found out she was a dating an ‘infidel,’ he would have killed him -- literally. Their family, hardworking and reasonably comfortable, didn’t mind the life their new welcoming tolerant culture gave them, but this individual apparently didn't have the courtesy to reciprocate because he had a radical medieval religion ingrained in him. My friend did meet the mother but the father was kept out of the loop. As you can imagine, it was quite a tense situation to be around. His gf had many emotional issues going into the relationship and I never asked about her upbringing because I frankly didn’t want to know. I had heard enough.

Some might call this ‘culture’ others would say it’s a religion. I’ve used many adjectives: cult, brainwashing, indoctrination, radicalism, fundamentalism….

Whatever it is, it’s not very friendly, tolerant and compatible with the rest of us. What type of culture encourages parents to raise their children to be martyrs? What type of individual is so consumed by hate for his neighbor that he spends all this time plotting to kill, neglecting his own life, family and community?

You and Mr. Pape are quite right in saying economic backgrounds don’t seem to play a factor into this ‘radicalism’ however the lack of political and social progress in the middle-east does provide clues as to why Muslims are plowing airliners into skyscrapers and blowing up subways, hotels, markets etc.

Economically, Africa is in horrendous shape compared to the ME, but Africans aren’t strapping their children with suicide belts to blow up the local supermarket. Indeed, Africans could come up with a larger list of ‘grievances’ than the average Palestinian, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Saudi ever could.

Is it really the “occupiers”? No, “it’s the culture, stupid.”

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in this world. Depending on who you ask, anywhere from 15-25% are categorized as ‘radical.’ Moreover, we don’t know exactly what ‘radical’ means. A ‘radical’ can range from one who cheered when he saw the WTC collapse to one who might actually get on a plane and knock another building down, if the opportunity presented itself.

The long term challenge we face is, how do we empower the moderates to marginalize and defeat the radicals? The short term challenge is how do we tone down the ‘radical’ element just enough – without imposing our own culture on Muslims and Arabs in their own backyard – so the bloodshed finally stops.

These aren't easy objectives, however they are imperative to our own security.

Pull out of the ME and allow the radicals to consolidate power? What good will that do? (Other than create the fertile grounds for more training, arms and Jihad to flow through the region eventually landing on our shores?)

If there are twenty-eight million souls living in Iraq and even 5-10% are fighting the ‘occupiers,’ frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. I don’t care what the radicals are saying because they have no moral governing authority: they don’t represent the people of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Palestinian territories -- as much as our elites here would have us believe otherwise. We’re not the problem, the radicals are. We didn't invade their countries, their countrymen made them their slave masters for decades. History would repeat itself if we left.

Why give them more credibility than necessary? I don’t doubt their barbaric bloodshed is shaping opinion but that’s precisely the point: perception isn’t always what it seems. When 85% of a country is relatively secure and stable, a war is never lost, no matter how many times Harry Reid says it.

One final point about destroying the enemy’s spirit and will. On 9/11, with the world in total shock, while some Palestinians and their children celebrated in the streets in their usual pathetic display of celebratory machine gun fire, bin Laden’s popularity across the Middle East was at an all time high. Four years later after the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan; “Shock and Awe” finally gave the boot to another tyrant in Iraq who had been supporting the culture of suicide bombing throughout the region; Libya had dismantled their WMD program; and the Lebanese people ousted an occupying power (Syria) after three decades; Bin Laden’s popularity plummeted in the Arab world. His bluster considerably toned down, on the run somewhere, begging the American people for a truce during the 04 elections. The once untouchable white-knight looked vulnerable, weak, unsure of the mission he once had promised his loyal followers was their destiny.

As I said, it's not about how many buildings you can knock down or measuring the progress by counting the dead, it's about breaking the enemy's spirit.

I think we’ve made great progress since 9/11 because someone made the right decisions -- although the execution and communication has left much to be desired.

"Occupiers"? Nah, everyone loves a winner, nepenthe. The Iraqi people will follow the tide – whoever they perceive to be the victor. The small group of radicals (complete phonies) will either conform or die (their humiliating death a warning to all aspiring “freedom fighters”) and the remaining players arming themselves to threaten the peace in the region will also one day find themselves at the wrong end of American justice.

After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, bin Laden was said to have told his followers he couldn’t believe the United States didn’t respond, which he argued gave him the assurance and opportunity to deal a lethal blow to the Great Satan – a spectacular attack designed to cripple the economic giant, it’s prestigious military command and control and the federal government itself – by the people.

To paraphrase a great president, “bin Laden counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.” (Oh and btw, that speech President Reagan gave at the time Col. Gadhafi was at the top of his terror game? Well, he wasn’t been heard from since. Not a peep.)

 

[nepenthe]

Nepenthe,

I have a friend who used to date a Palestinian girl. (And yes, he really is a friend.) For three years, he never got a chance to meet her father because had he found out she was a dating an ‘infidel,’ he would have killed him -- literally. Their family, hardworking and reasonably comfortable, didn’t mind the life their new welcoming tolerant culture gave them, but this individual apparently didn't have the courtesy to reciprocate because he had a radical medieval religion ingrained in him. My friend did meet the mother but the father was kept out of the loop. As you can imagine, it was quite a tense situation to be around. His gf had many emotional issues going into the relationship and I never asked about her upbringing because I frankly didn’t want to know. I had heard enough.

Some might call this ‘culture’ others would say it’s a religion. I’ve used many adjectives: cult, brainwashing, indoctrination, radicalism, fundamentalism….

I've heard of many stories in which a romantic relationship gets jeopardized by the dissent of one or more of their parents. It goes back further than Romeo & Juliet and has many causes, including culture, religion, social status, race, money, etc. I've experienced this many times vicariously through my acquaintances as well and they were ugly, often involving threats of violence by the parents. None of them was Palestinian or Islamic. No sense in singling them out and calling it brainwashing. Besides, didn't I explain at least several times in my previous posts of the difference between "cult" indoctrination and propaganda as they apply to suicide terrorism?

Whatever it is, it’s not very friendly, tolerant and compatible with the rest of us. What type of culture encourages parents to raise their children to be martyrs? What type of individual is so consumed by hate for his neighbor that he spends all this time plotting to kill, neglecting his own life, family and community?

You and Mr. Pape are quite right in saying economic backgrounds don’t seem to play a factor into this ‘radicalism’ however the lack of political and social progress in the middle-east does provide clues as to why Muslims are plowing airliners into skyscrapers and blowing up subways, hotels, markets etc.

Economically, Africa is in horrendous shape compared to the ME, but Africans aren’t strapping their children with suicide belts to blow up the local supermarket. Indeed, Africans could come up with a larger list of ‘grievances’ than the average Palestinian, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Saudi ever could.

I don't know about that. What's going on in Somalia (Mogadishu) is pretty brutal. But I like to keep on topic.

Is it really the “occupiers”? No, “it’s the culture, stupid.”

Actually, it's both. Plus a few other factors. The fact that the occupier is a Democracy and answerable to popular opinion is favorable to suicide terrorism, because all they have to do is engage in a sustained array of spectacular, high-casualty-rate operations and the opposing Democracy is very sensitive to that. Suicide terrorism wouldn't work against a dictatorship, for example. Also, suicide terrorism is very often a last resort by those without military might against those with significantly superior military might. It's an efficient strategy for those of poor social/economic/technological backgrounds, again because of the good R:R ratio. Finally, religious differences between the occupier and the occupied play an important role as well, since it's that much easier for the suicide terrorists to portray the occupiers as infidels etc. if they do not share the same religion.

So there is a number of factors, and foreign occupation - or what the suicide terrorists consider to be foreign occupation - is definitely at the top of the list.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in this world. Depending on who you ask, anywhere from 15-25% are categorized as ‘radical.’ Moreover, we don’t know exactly what ‘radical’ means. A ‘radical’ can range from one who cheered when he saw the WTC collapse to one who might actually get on a plane and knock another building down, if the opportunity presented itself.

The long term challenge we face is, how do we empower the moderates to marginalize and defeat the radicals? The short term challenge is how do we tone down the ‘radical’ element just enough – without imposing our own culture on Muslims and Arabs in their own backyard – so the bloodshed finally stops.

These aren't easy objectives, however they are imperative to our own security.

Pull out of the ME and allow the radicals to consolidate power? What good will that do? (Other than create the fertile grounds for more training, arms and Jihad to flow through the region eventually landing on our shores?)

If there are twenty-eight million souls living in Iraq and even 5-10% are fighting the ‘occupiers,’ frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. I don’t care what the radicals are saying because they have no moral governing authority: they don’t represent the people of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Palestinian territories -- as much as our elites here would have us believe otherwise. We’re not the problem, the radicals are. We didn't invade their countries, their countrymen made them their slave masters for decades. History would repeat itself if we left.

"No moral governing authority"? Last time I checked Hamas was a popularly-elected government over Fatah. Hezbollah runs extensive social services programs, not to mention educational facilities, news channels, hospitals and the like, and has significant political clout, frequently staging mass demonstrations with significant community backing. I'll get to al-Qaeda a bit further down; in any case, the points stand.

Why give them more credibility than necessary? I don’t doubt their barbaric bloodshed is shaping opinion but that’s precisely the point: perception isn’t always what it seems. When 85% of a country is relatively secure and stable, a war is never lost, no matter how many times Harry Reid says it.

I don't think "relatively secure and stable" is the right phrase to describe any of the ME, esp. Iraq.

One final point about destroying the enemy’s spirit and will. On 9/11, with the world in total shock, while some Palestinians and their children celebrated in the streets in their usual pathetic display of celebratory machine gun fire, bin Laden’s popularity across the Middle East was at an all time high. Four years later after the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan; “Shock and Awe” finally gave the boot to another tyrant in Iraq who had been supporting the culture of suicide bombing throughout the region; Libya had dismantled their WMD program; and the Lebanese people ousted an occupying power (Syria) after three decades; Bin Laden’s popularity plummeted in the Arab world. His bluster considerably toned down, on the run somewhere, begging the American people for a truce during the 04 elections. The once untouchable white-knight looked vulnerable, weak, unsure of the mission he once had promised his loyal followers was their destiny.

As I said, it's not about how many buildings you can knock down or measuring the progress by counting the dead, it's about breaking the enemy's spirit.

Really, so the US has broken the spirit of bin Laden and his ilk? During 2004, no less? Funny, because from what I can see, he commanded and continues to command tremendous levels of popularity by Pakistanians, Jordanians and Indonesians, and despite a ~$25M bounty for his head, no one has betrayed him. Hell, bin Laden fans were building online communities last time I checked. Meanwhile the Taliban is apparently busy working on the spring offensive in Afghanistan.

I think we’ve made great progress since 9/11 because someone made the right decisions -- although the execution and communication has left much to be desired.

"Occupiers"? Nah, everyone loves a winner, nepenthe.

And more and more are becoming convinced the US isn't winning; even Bush went from Mission Accomplished, to we'll win, to we're winning, to we're not winning...we're not losing, to . . . I don't know if he's said anything after that.

The Iraqi people will follow the tide – whoever they perceive to be the victor. The small group of radicals (complete phonies) will either conform or die (their humiliating death a warning to all aspiring “freedom fighters”) and the remaining players arming themselves to threaten the peace in the region will also one day find themselves at the wrong end of American justice.

After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, bin Laden was said to have told his followers he couldn’t believe the United States didn’t respond, which he argued gave him the assurance and opportunity to deal a lethal blow to the Great Satan – a spectacular attack designed to cripple the economic giant, it’s prestigious military command and control and the federal government itself – by the people.

To paraphrase a great president, “bin Laden counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.”

Already addressed bin Laden and his ilk above.

(Oh and btw, that speech President Reagan gave at the time Col. Gadhafi was at the top of his terror game? Well, he wasn’t been heard from since. Not a peep.)

Irrelevant, because dealing with suicide terrorists is completely different from dealing with (former) state sponsors of terrorism.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Besides, didn't I explain at least several times in my previous posts of the difference between "cult" indoctrination and propaganda as they apply to suicide terrorism?

Yes, you did. I read it. It's your theory, not mine.

I don't know about that. What's going on in Somalia (Mogadishu) is pretty brutal.

Ah yes, memories. Don't we all remember Mogadishu: "Operation Paper Tiger."

The fact that the occupier is a Democracy and answerable to popular opinion is favorable to suicide terrorism, because all they have to do is engage in a sustained array of spectacular, high-casualty-rate operations and the opposing Democracy is very sensitive to that.

Nice. So the people make their choice, desire peace and want to build their lives (like most free people) but because a tiny radical militia has the means to blow up markets, police stations, and hold the government hostage to their will...the Iraqi people should.... what? Crawl back to the bargaining table in fear and seek a "political solution" with these thugs?

Apparently if you belong to the Democrat party then the answer is "yes."

I do agree with your tactical observation though. After all, everyone is well aware al-Qaida loves toying with our democracy as well.

Suicide terrorism wouldn't work against a dictatorship, for example.

True. And neither would socialism -- which is why I prefer dictatorship. Problem is, I can't find anyone I can trust with that type of power so I'm stuck with this turd called democracy. *sigh* Let me know if you find suitable candidate and I'll be happy to give him/her a serious look-see.

Also, suicide terrorism is very often a last resort by those without military might against those with significantly superior military might. It's an efficient strategy for those of poor social/economic/technological backgrounds, again because of the good R:R ratio.

Okay, a little too much praise and sympathy for the beast here.

Suicide bombing is a relatively new phenomenon that exists only in this radical Islamic culture. When an Islamofascist doesn't get his way, he blows himself up in a pizzeria -- that's about the gist of it. Now, why is suicide bombing his trigger? Just about every nation has been 'occupied' at some point in it's life -- none that I can name, went so far as to strap a bomb to their children and send them off to their death. I've already mentioned Africa in many ways being in worse shape than the ME but Africans don't export suicide bombing, either...

No other way to say this, nepenthe....

Pape, your theory is CRAP! Nice try in validating your equally crappy assertion that "America is conquering Muslim countries" though...

There, I feel much better now.

You know, a AF pilot in a B-2 Spirit with an electronic map of schools and residential areas, dropping a smart bomb on one of Saddam's palaces (or Iran's nuclear facilities) has more humanity than those "freedom fighters" with a disdain for the rule of the law and the people's choice in Iraq, or Daniel Pearl's beheader. (Btw, what country did the journalist occupy again?)

One can always 'justify' unacceptable behavior if one digs hard enough. Hitler had 'grievances' too -- and began the Holocaust then steamrolled dover half of Europe believing he was the righteous one. I accept the fact some people may try to see "his side of the story" (abusive childhood etc.) and have sympathy for the Devil.

Where I come from, we call all this psychoanalytical phony-baloney, "moral relativism."

Finally, religious differences between the occupier and the occupied play an important role as well, since it's that much easier for the suicide terrorists to portray the occupiers as infidels etc. if they do not share the same religion.

So there is a number of factors, and foreign occupation - or what the suicide terrorists consider to be foreign occupation - is definitely at the top of the list.

Right. But again, who cares what the terrorists think: they're a small minority, like the "Bestiality Liberation Front." Unless of course a deeper analysis into these minds leads to a more expedient victory -- i.e. undermine their strategies and crush them.

"No moral governing authority"?

Nope. Not in Iraq. I'll ask for the third time:

Iraq: population twenty-eight million. How many are engaged in the violence?

Last time I checked Hamas was a popularly-elected government over Fatah.

Sure. It's a young democracy and they don't have the stable institutions to govern properly, so I'd consider this a democracy in name only. On the other hand, if they serve their people well, and the people are happy with them, all the power to them.

Personally, I wouldn't do business with them.

Hezbollah runs extensive social services programs, not to mention educational facilities, news channels, hospitals and the like, and has significant political clout, frequently staging mass demonstrations with significant community backing.

:nopityA:

Duh! They need the land whenever their masters in Tehran tell them to launch missiles at innocent civilians in Israel. The Lebanese people (all but radicals) hate them.

I'll get to al-Qaeda a bit further down; in any case, the points stand.

Actually, in the early years, when bin Laden was searching for the meaning of life, he wanted to use al-Qaida to help build infrastructure (bin Laden was in the construction business) and some of the other causes you mentioned. Too bad he shit-canned that idea and decided Jihad was the more righteous course.

I don't think "relatively secure and stable" is the right phrase to describe any of the ME, esp. Iraq.

Shhh, don't tell the Kurds.

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Really, so the US has broken the spirit of bin Laden and his ilk? During 2004, no less? Funny, because from what I can see, he commanded and continues to command tremendous levels of popularity by Pakistanians, Jordanians and Indonesians, and despite a ~$25M bounty for his head, no one has betrayed him.

First of all, bin Laden is dead. We didn't kill him though, he died because of his kidney condition.

Second, yes, there was a poll posted here from all countries in the ME detailing his plunge in support. Maybe I'll try and do search...

Hell, bin Laden fans were building online communities last time I checked.

Underline this in blood: crush the spirit.

There many ways of crushing the Jihadist spirit, but unfortunately we're not doing any of them at the moment.

We need to do a better job in reaching out to the moderates and help them defeat the radicals on many fronts, but a lot of moderates are afraid and intimidated.

Meanwhile the Taliban is apparently busy working on the spring offensive in Afghanistan.

So are we. Cleaning up gang infested areas isn't a pleasant job, either. But this doesn't mean you quit fighting and allow the roaches to take over the city. Or does it? :ughhh:

And more and more are becoming convinced the US isn't winning; even Bush went from Mission Accomplished, to we'll win, to we're winning, to we're not winning...we're not losing, to . . . I don't know if he's said anything after that.

Extended wars are unpopular with the people, wrote Sun-Tzu. What you're saying is nothing new. What's needed is a Commander-in-Chief who can counter the bullshit (90% of what the public is hearing now is bullshit) which I concede we do not have at the moment.

I'm not worried and very patient: help is on the way.

Irrelevant, because dealing with suicide terrorists is completely different from dealing with (former) state sponsors of terrorism.

Actually, it is relevant because human nature is relatively predictable on every scale. Find the pressure points on your target and you can inflict immense amounts of pain. Problem is, the bleeding hearts here at home, don't want us to climb into the gutter and "communicate" (if you will) on a suicide bomber's level. They prefer a civilized approach in dealing with uncivilized people, which of course never works.

 

[sd2]

NEPENTHE - 77
CONTRARIAN - 7

Joe,

You really have to get out of this game. You have to concede. You can do that by quietly picking up your gear and walking off the field.

I kind of know you, having locked horns with you a number of times over the last 8 months. And, despite the blasts against you by others on this board, you have certain virtues, such as sometimes initiating interesting discussions. Also, that you are interested in ideas, more than personalities.

But, Joe, you can't beat this guy. He's embarrassing you. (If he took me on about anything I wrote I think I'd also retire from the field.)

He keeps cornering you with unassailable logic. It's starting to look almost like a reprise of the threads last year, when moderator Xpanda chased you down these boards, insisting you email her the document in Arabic you claimed you had, that "proved" Saddam was welcoming terrorists to Iraq.

And, remember, the long chase ended when you mumbled some face-saving nonsense, and everyone knew beyond doubt that you'd been bullshitting.

This is almost as bad. You're getting creamed, my friend. And, it may be by someone who, like xpanda, is also a Canadian.(As are you, or at least you live in Toronto - tho we all know that home is where the heart is.)

Just a guess based on one little linguistic expression he wrote to start a sentence.

You've put up a good fight here, but overmatched is overmatched. You come across - as i'm sure I do sometimes - as a hard propagandist for a certain viewpoint. He comes across as a dispasssionate logician.

Game over, guy.

 

[JoeContrarian]

"Terrorism" is War Fought Against Occupying Powers"



No proof means you have to earn the points, sd2. You can't cheat just because you don't like me.

Prove the theory, or admit it's CRAP because that's exactly what it is.

Claiming "terrorism is war fought against occupying powers" is like saying little Johnny only misbehaves when he's punished. :lolBIG:

 

[nepenthe]

Yes, you did. I read it. It's your theory, not mine.

And this implies what precisely?

Ah yes, memories. Don't we all remember Mogadishu: "Operation Paper Tiger."

I would ask you to elaborate, but I don't want to plunge further into tangential topics.

Nice. So the people make their choice, desire peace and want to build their lives (like most free people) but because a tiny radical militia has the means to blow up markets, police stations, and hold the government hostage to their will...the Iraqi people should.... what? Crawl back to the bargaining table in fear and seek a "political solution" with these thugs?

Apparently if you belong to the Democrat party then the answer is "yes."

I do agree with your tactical observation though. After all, everyone is well aware al-Qaida loves toying with our democracy as well.

Actually, I wasn't talking about the nascent Iraqi democracy, but the U.S. democracy. Democracies do not have thick skin when it comes to extended wars/wars involving significant casualties.

True. And neither would socialism -- which is why I prefer dictatorship. Problem is, I can't find anyone I can trust with that type of power so I'm stuck with this turd called democracy. *sigh* Let me know if you find suitable candidate and I'll be happy to give him/her a serious look-see.

Ding.

Although I am marginally sympathetic to so-called benevolent dictatorships, but for different reasons. Neither here nor there. I do appreciate your honesty, in any case.

Okay, a little too much praise and sympathy for the beast here.

Suicide bombing is a relatively new phenomenon that exists only in this radical Islamic culture.

No...I've previously given examples of non-Islamic, even non-religious suicide terrorist groups. Or are you saying that bombing is a relatively new phenomenon? Because that'd be an irrelevant point.

When an Islamofascist doesn't get his way, he blows himself up in a pizzeria -- that's about the gist of it. Now, why is suicide bombing his trigger? Just about every nation has been 'occupied' at some point in it's life -- none that I can name, went so far as to strap a bomb to their children and send them off to their death. I've already mentioned Africa in many ways being in worse shape than the ME but Africans don't export suicide bombing, either...

No other way to say this, nepenthe....

Pape, your theory is CRAP! Nice try in validating your equally crappy assertion that "America is conquering Muslim countries" though...

Didn't I previously point out how this is a logical fallacy by stating that just because not every previously-occupied country has engaged in suicide terrorism, and just because there are indeed other reasons for it, does not mean that occupation isn't a primary impetus in those countries that do engage in same? Yes, of course I have.

There, I feel much better now.

You know, a AF pilot in a B-2 Spirit with an electronic map of schools and residential areas, dropping a smart bomb on one of Saddam's palaces (or Iran's nuclear facilities) has more humanity than those "freedom fighters" with a disdain for the rule of the law and the people's choice in Iraq, or Daniel Pearl's beheader. (Btw, what country did the journalist occupy again?)

Beside the point. I'm not arguing humanity or lack thereof.

One can always 'justify' unacceptable behavior if one digs hard enough. Hitler had 'grievances' too -- and began the Holocaust then steamrolled dover half of Europe believing he was the righteous one. I accept the fact some people may try to see "his side of the story" (abusive childhood etc.) and have sympathy for the Devil.

Beside the point. I'm not "justify[ing]" anything, just seeking to figure out certain underlying causes.

Where I come from, we call all this psychoanalytical phony-baloney, "moral relativism."

Where do you come from again?

Right. But again, who cares what the terrorists think: they're a small minority, like the "Bestiality Liberation Front." Unless of course a deeper analysis into these minds leads to a more expedient victory -- i.e. undermine their strategies and crush them.

Who cares what the terrorists think? Probably those fighting against them should begin caring. Understanding the mental, political, and strategic processes of suicide terrorism, instead of outright dismissing them as a small minority (who, according to you, somehow still poses a grave, global threat), would only be a logical first step to dealing with the problem.

Nope. Not in Iraq. I'll ask for the third time:

Iraq: population twenty-eight million. How many are engaged in the violence?

Third time? I thought it was the second time. Either way, then, for the second or third time, let me quote what I have previously said on this issue:

This is why suicide terrorism is effective at what it aims to accomplish: you don't NEED an inordinate number of suicide terrorists, nor do you need a majority of the citizenry fighting the battle, in order to inflict massive casualties. You only need to keep up the Anti-West sentiments and the trump occupation card in hand to garner enough levels of community support to keep thriving. The risk-to-reward ratio is much, much lower in suicide terrorism than in other forms of warfare, as well as other forms of non-suicide terrorism.

You see, I don't know or care what percentage of the Iraqi population is currently engaged in violence. That's beside the point for reasons mentioned above, and has nothing to do with the level of influence that suicide terrorists can have over their communities.

Sure. It's a young democracy and they don't have the stable institutions to govern properly, so I'd consider this a democracy in name only. On the other hand, if they serve their people well, and the people are happy with them, all the power to them.

Personally, I wouldn't do business with them.

:nopityA:

So you concede the point regarding governing authority exercised by suicide terrorists, moral or otherwise. Ok.

Duh! They need the land whenever their masters in Tehran tell them to launch missiles at innocent civilians in Israel. The Lebanese people (all but radicals) hate them.

So exactly what percentage of the Lebanese people would be "radicals" then? Are they a "cult" or part of a "culture"?

Actually, in the early years, when bin Laden was searching for the meaning of life, he wanted to use al-Qaida to help build infrastructure (bin Laden was in the construction business) and some of the other causes you mentioned. Too bad he shit-canned that idea and decided Jihad was the more righteous course.

And this is relevant to the "moral governing authority" you previously mentioned in what way?

Shhh, don't tell the Kurds.

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Uhh. We could begin engaging in a link war, but frankly I don't want to go down that route as it's an endless loop. The above link is quite laughable, though. Getting back on topic.

First of all, bin Laden is dead. We didn't kill him though, he died because of his kidney condition.

Second, yes, there was a poll posted here from all countries in the ME detailing his plunge in support. Maybe I'll try and do search...

Assuming he is, my points still stand. And plunge in support? After he died? I could easily find information showing otherwise, but once again I'd like to discourage link wars.

Underline this in blood: crush the spirit.

There many ways of crushing the Jihadist spirit, but unfortunately we're not doing any of them at the moment.

There are ways, yes, and the US isn't doing them, correct. Moving on.

We need to do a better job in reaching out to the moderates and help them defeat the radicals on many fronts, but a lot of moderates are afraid and intimidated.

Moderates as in...Arabs, western allies? Help them, how?

So are we. Cleaning up gang infested areas isn't a pleasant job, either. But this doesn't mean you quit fighting and allow the roaches to take over the city. Or does it? :ughhh:

That's not the point. I mentioned the Taliban spring offensive as a counter-response to your previous remark that the US has somehow "destroy[ed] the enemy's spirit and will." Obviously not the case.

Extended wars are unpopular with the people, wrote Sun-Tzu. What you're saying is nothing new.

Of course I never claimed it was a new concept. And of course it holds true after all these years. But again, that's beside the point. One can be objectively winning a war while still having that war be unpopular with the people.

What's needed is a Commander-in-Chief who can counter the bullshit (90% of what the public is hearing now is bullshit) which I concede we do not have at the moment.

I'm not worried and very patient: help is on the way.

Such as a benevolent dictator, perhaps?
The enemies appear to be far more patient.

Actually, it is relevant because human nature is relatively predictable on every scale. Find the pressure points on your target and you can inflict immense amounts of pain. Problem is, the bleeding hearts here at home, don't want us to climb into the gutter and "communicate" (if you will) on a suicide bomber's level. They prefer a civilized approach in dealing with uncivilized people, which of course never works.

How do you locate pressure points on transnational, evolving, hit-and-running, guerrilla-style suicide terrorists who, as you've said, are willing to go so far as to send off their children to become martyrs? You can't, because they pretty much have nothing to lose. Once again, suicide terrorism is a kind of last resort for them. Countries, on the other hand, or state sponsors of terrorism, do have something to lose. Crucial difference.

 

[sd2]

I hate to seem like I'm piling on, but Joe on a number of occasions mentions almost triumphantly that the jihadists are a small minority in their respective lands, and that the people if given a choice will reject them.

Not so, Joe. As the master of non-conventional warfare, Mao, famously wrote, the people are the sea in which swim the fighters for the nation.

The sea is vaster than than any number of fish, which need that environment to survive and thrive.

So it is with the jihadists. They cannot operate without a largely sympathetic, tho silent, population. We saw that in play in Vietnam, when even "friendly" villages harbored a hard core of Viet Cong.

In the American Revolution, historians think that only a third of the people were in favor of independence (and a third strongly opposed - the Loyalists - and the rest on the fence, willing to go with the winner).

Even among that one/third on General Washington's side, only five percent - ten % at the most - were in any way active in the rebellion. As soldiers, suppliers, spies, etc

History is always written by a minority.

Independent polls in Iraq have shown that the people strongly oppose both the American occupation AND al-Queda. They want the foreigners out of their land.

Not hard to understand. Many will silently support the
Resistance (the so-called "insurgency"), if only by keeping silent about their whereabouts, feeding them sometimes,and the like

 

[JoeContrarian]

And this implies what precisely?

That we have a difference of opinion.

Actually, I wasn't talking about the nascent Iraqi democracy, but the U.S. democracy. Democracies do not have thick skin when it comes to extended wars/wars involving significant casualties.

Agreed, though I'm reluctant to give up so easily. I believe a true statesman -- articulate, trustworthy, disarming etc. -- could maintain the public support for an imperative extended war. I believe this because I do have faith in the people.

Although I am marginally sympathetic to so-called benevolent dictatorships, but for different reasons. Neither here nor there. I do appreciate your honesty, in any case.

Problem is, I've never seen a benevolent dictatorship. (Power corrupts. Go figure.) A jury-like system for public servants might work -- assuming government could be scaled back to it's original uncluttered scale. Not sure, I'd have to think this through more thoroughly. There must be a better system than the melon we're stuck with now.

No...I've previously given examples of non-Islamic, even non-religious suicide terrorist groups.

I don't recall that you had. Obviously I raised Japanese Kamikaze pilots but the dynamics aren't even remotely similar.

Start from the extreme and work to the middle...

I know of no culture throughout history who glorified martyrdom as much as this new strain of radical Islam. Can you think of any parallels -- mothers sacrificing themselves and their children, in the name of hate?

Who cares what the terrorists think? Probably those fighting against them should begin caring. Understanding the mental, political, and strategic processes of suicide terrorism, instead of outright dismissing them as a small minority (who, according to you, somehow still poses a grave, global threat), would only be a logical first step to dealing with the problem.

They do pose a grave and global threat, should one of them ever be given a nuke.

On the other hand, the suicide bomber as an individual is nothing more than an instrument of terror and is being used and abused by his slave masters. I'm more concerned with the big fish.

Third time? I thought it was the second time. Either way, then, for the second or third time, let me quote what I have previously said on this issue:

You see, I don't know or care what percentage of the Iraqi population is currently engaged in violence. That's beside the point for reasons mentioned above, and has nothing to do with the level of influence that suicide terrorists can have over their communities.

So you concede the point regarding governing authority exercised by suicide terrorists, moral or otherwise. Ok.

No, I don't accept fringe elements of society usurping either individual rights or the collective will of the people. A democratic government enslaved to a small militia cannot be a proper servant to those it is designed to protect.

So exactly what percentage of the Lebanese people would be "radicals" then? Are they a "cult" or part of a "culture"?

Without Googling, I would estimate it to be the same ratio for all radical to moderate Muslims -- 15-25% of the whatever the Lebanese Muslim population. Most Lebanese people will tell you the radicals are the ones causing the unrest and terror in their country -- political assassinations, civil unrest etc. -- supported of course by other belligerent players in the region.

Uhh. We could begin engaging in a link war, but frankly I don't want to go down that route as it's an endless loop. The above link is quite laughable, though. Getting back on topic.

Surely you concede the Kurdish economy is doing very well -- and for that matter the Iraqi one.

Assuming he is, my points still stand. And plunge in support? After he died? I could easily find information showing otherwise, but once again I'd like to discourage link wars.

Right. bin Laden's popularity peeked just before Operation Enduring Freedom.

Moderates as in...Arabs, western allies? Help them, how?

Moderates are being intimidated by the radicals all over, even here at home.

There's a movie due out on PBS on this very subject but the PC police have yet to allow it to air. Hopefully once a few members of Congress have viewed it, the "cultural sensitivity" fetishists will be duly patted on the head and pushed aside.

It's vital everyone see this movie.

That's not the point. I mentioned the Taliban spring offensive as a counter-response to your previous remark that the US has somehow "destroy[ed] the enemy's spirit and will." Obviously not the case.

Given the enormous task at hand, the spirit is weaker now than it was on 9/11. Obviously the job is far from complete but the command and control structure of the terrorist network that had been attacking us with impunity has been severely damaged.

At this point, I would describe Al-Qaida more as a "inspirational movement" than a functioning entity, ordering suicide bomber 'A' and 'B' to carry out their objectives.

One can be objectively winning a war while still having that war be unpopular with the people.

Absolutely.

The enemies appear to be far more patient.

Yes, the enemies know us better than we do ourselves. They can't beat us on seas, in the air, or even on their own soil, but they figured out they don't have to. All they have to do is win the propaganda war, by controling the headlines: driving the perception. To wit, create a steady drip-drip-drip effect on our nightly newscasts and voters back home will eventually lose their appetite to "stay the course."

The terrorists know the American people are the center of gravity in this war -- but I wonder how many of the people back home are also aware of this reality?

I still maintain an effective leader could dampen the bad news, but it's not easy. (Democracies suck, reason #148)

How do you locate pressure points on transnational, evolving, hit-and-running, guerrilla-style suicide terrorists who, as you've said, are willing to go so far as to send off their children to become martyrs? You can't, because they pretty much have nothing to lose. Once again, suicide terrorism is a kind of last resort for them. Countries, on the other hand, or state sponsors of terrorism, do have something to lose. Crucial difference.

First of all, if the rules of engagement in a war zone have been written by lawyers, you've lost before you've begun. Without getting dragged into the nitty gritty, this was one of the major mistakes they made going into Iraq. Win the war first; then you can capture the "hearts and minds." For the record, I'd rather have 100,000 troops with the proper rules-of-engagement than 300,000 with the wrong ones.

Point number two: re. pressure points of guerrilla style terrorists. For the lower-end Jihadist, begin by using their families as resources of leverage. Kidnappings etc. This should neutralize the recruiting efforts once word gets around.

Point number three: Insurgencies aren't self-sustaining, they require a constant flow of arms, money and logistical support. Very easy to identify, not so easy (politically) to go after if they are originating across a border. -- which they almost always are. Assuming I had proof the Iranians were providing any aid or support to the Iraqi insurgents, I would fax them a list targets -- oil fields, military installations, IED factories -- and give them a warning. For every IED cache we catch with Iranian finger prints, for every time we identify an agent of Hezbollah or the Iranian Guard assisting the insurgent network, we're going to begin picking them off, one by one. Or, you don't even have to warn them. Strike them in the middle of the night with no "civilian casualties" for al-Jazeera to broadcast across the ME, then play dumb in the morning when people start asking questions.

Point number four: The military wins wars, not the politicos who make their living posturing back home.

Point number five: I've said this before, I'll say it again: if Iraq were an island somewhere in the Pacific, the country would be relatively tranquil and stable by now. The forces of instability are not internal. They continue to be fueled by interests and foreign terrorists who have absolutely no stake in an outcome favorable to most Iraqis. Iraqis need to be made aware of this, as do the American people. That takes leadership. Wars are ugly and must be fought ugly -- which is something else that must be understood by the people before any president places troops in harms way.

 

[nepenthe]

That we have a difference of opinion.

Said difference being that, for instance, you would compare the kind of suicidal rampage committed at VT to modern suicide terrorism, and I point out precisely how they are different from a social, individual and logical perspective? Or that you would refer to suicide terrorists as "cults" and I point out how they do not fit the classic definition of cults in just about every way?

Agreed, though I'm reluctant to give up so easily. I believe a true statesman -- articulate, trustworthy, disarming etc. -- could maintain the public support for an imperative extended war. I believe this because I do have faith in the people.

Problem is, I've never seen a benevolent dictatorship. (Power corrupts. Go figure.) A jury-like system for public servants might work -- assuming government could be scaled back to it's original uncluttered scale. Not sure, I'd have to think this through more thoroughly. There must be a better system than the melon we're stuck with now.

One could get rid of government. No, really. But the justifications for that are numerous and beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't recall that you had. Obviously I raised Japanese Kamikaze pilots but the dynamics aren't even remotely similar.

I had already mentioned Tamil Tigers, who are explicitly anti-religious. The Kurdish PKK has roots in secular Marxist-Leninist ideology. There are other groups that are Islamic yet are not necessarily rooted in Islamic fundamentalism, such as al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Syrian National Socialist Party, Lebanese National Resistance Front, and others.

Start from the extreme and work to the middle...

I know of no culture throughout history who glorified martyrdom as much as this new strain of radical Islam. Can you think of any parallels -- mothers sacrificing themselves and their children, in the name of hate?

As far as we're talking propaganda, let's call a spade a spade: they do it in the name of nationalism and liberation.

They do pose a grave and global threat, should one of them ever be given a nuke.

On the other hand, the suicide bomber as an individual is nothing more than an instrument of terror and is being used and abused by his slave masters. I'm more concerned with the big fish.

If they had possession of enough nukes to do global damage, logic would dictate they don't need to resort to suicide terrorism any longer.

No, I don't accept fringe elements of society usurping either individual rights or the collective will of the people. A democratic government enslaved to a small militia cannot be a proper servant to those it is designed to protect.

I wasn't asking whether you accept it as right that many suicide terrorist groups hold significant moral influence over their communities; I was asking whether you accept it as true, at least in some cases.

Without Googling, I would estimate it to be the same ratio for all radical to moderate Muslims -- 15-25% of the whatever the Lebanese Muslim population. Most Lebanese people will tell you the radicals are the ones causing the unrest and terror in their country -- political assassinations, civil unrest etc. -- supported of course by other belligerent players in the region.

Actually, the majority of the Lebanese population supports Hezbollah's fight with Israel. A majority of Palestinians has a good view of them as well. The Israel-Lebanon War of 2006 boosted Hezbollah's popularity even more.

Surely you concede the Kurdish economy is doing very well -- and for that matter the Iraqi one.

No, and I heard the living conditions are horrible, with the flood of refugees and all. Anyway, this isn't relevant.

Given the enormous task at hand, the spirit is weaker now than it was on 9/11. Obviously the job is far from complete but the command and control structure of the terrorist network that had been attacking us with impunity has been severely damaged.

At this point, I would describe Al-Qaida more as a "inspirational movement" than a functioning entity, ordering suicide bomber 'A' and 'B' to carry out their objectives.

And if you consider the Taliban's spirit as having been weakened between 9/11 and now, how do you reckon the U.S. has fared in its own spirit during the same time frame? At least the Taliban have time on their side, as you readily acknowledge.

Absolutely.

Yes, the enemies know us better than we do ourselves. They can't beat us on seas, in the air, or even on their own soil, but they figured out they don't have to. All they have to do is win the propaganda war, by controling the headlines: driving the perception. To wit, create a steady drip-drip-drip effect on our nightly newscasts and voters back home will eventually lose their appetite to "stay the course."

The terrorists know the American people are the center of gravity in this war -- but I wonder how many of the people back home are also aware of this reality?

I still maintain an effective leader could dampen the bad news, but it's not easy. (Democracies suck, reason #148)

Thanks for confirming that.

First of all, if the rules of engagement in a war zone have been written by lawyers, you've lost before you've begun. Without getting dragged into the nitty gritty, this was one of the major mistakes they made going into Iraq. Win the war first; then you can capture the "hearts and minds." For the record, I'd rather have 100,000 troops with the proper rules-of-engagement than 300,000 with the wrong ones.

Any war must have a clearly defined, focused, narrow military objective. It began with the WMD allegation leading the way, then spread to other, more vague justifications such as Saddam's dictatorship, plight of the Iraqi's, spreading democracy, and so on. The WMD's are no longer a factor; Saddam is no longer a factor; mission was "accomplished"; so what exactly is the "war" in which the US is currently involved? Unless you're talking about the kind of nation-building which Dick Cheney in his earlier years said would be a kind of "quagmire."

Point number two: re. pressure points of guerrilla style terrorists. For the lower-end Jihadist, begin by using their families as resources of leverage. Kidnappings etc. This should neutralize the recruiting efforts once word gets around.

So on the one hand, these terrorists wouldn't hesitate to kill off their own children to achieve their ends, but somehow they would just buckle and give up if their families were kidnapped. I see.

Point number three: Insurgencies aren't self-sustaining, they require a constant flow of arms, money and logistical support. Very easy to identify, not so easy (politically) to go after if they are originating across a border. -- which they almost always are. Assuming I had proof the Iranians were providing any aid or support to the Iraqi insurgents, I would fax them a list targets -- oil fields, military installations, IED factories -- and give them a warning. For every IED cache we catch with Iranian finger prints, for every time we identify an agent of Hezbollah or the Iranian Guard assisting the insurgent network, we're going to begin picking them off, one by one. Or, you don't even have to warn them. Strike them in the middle of the night with no "civilian casualties" for al-Jazeera to broadcast across the ME, then play dumb in the morning when people start asking questions.

"Assuming" you had proof? Is there proof?

Point number four: The military wins wars, not the politicos who make their living posturing back home.

The military may win battles, but can't by itself change political landscapes. And when winning the "war on terrorism" entails (as you've said) persuading the so-called moderates over to our side, you'd better believe politics is at the heart of any long-term solution.

Point number five: I've said this before, I'll say it again: if Iraq were an island somewhere in the Pacific, the country would be relatively tranquil and stable by now. The forces of instability are not internal. They continue to be fueled by interests and foreign terrorists who have absolutely no stake in an outcome favorable to most Iraqis. Iraqis need to be made aware of this, as do the American people. That takes leadership. Wars are ugly and must be fought ugly -- which is something else that must be understood by the people before any president places troops in harms way.

"Interests . . . [that] have absolutely no stake in an outcome favorable to most Iraqis." I could have sworn you were talking about the U.S. Wait, you were, weren't you.

 

[sd2]

Game over.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Said difference being that, for instance, you would compare the kind of suicidal rampage committed at VT to modern suicide terrorism, and I point out precisely how they are different from a social, individual and logical perspective? Or that you would refer to suicide terrorists as "cults" and I point out how they do not fit the classic definition of cults in just about every way?

Of course there are social and environmental differences between the examples discussed. This is not what we're debating. The trait all these cases have most common is they are brainwashed -- i.e. suicide bombers make their decisions not in the self-interest, rather based on false data/input they are given etc.

Once again, to review:

brain·wash·ing

/ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ

ɪŋ, -ˌwɔ

ʃɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences. </td></tr></tbody></table>
Also, brain-washing, brain washing.

Pretty brood definition -- as opposed to Pape's very narrow somewhat illogical, intellectually dishonest, politically motivated definition.

Let me give you just one example to support my argument. The median age in the Palestinian territories is 15 years old. The 'intellectuals' of that area have long cut their losses, packed up their families and left for greener pastures, because they recognize the situation for what it is: hopeless.

On the other hand, the mostly young fanatics who believe one day Israel will be "wiped off the map" in the name of Allah, stay and fight on.

Now I ask you, which position is more logical and favors the self-interest?

Nobody could ever make a convincing case (as Pape is trying to do) suicide bombing is acting in the self-interest: brainwashing.

Moreover, negotiations in search of a common ground and a lasting peace with these fanatics is utterly hopeless. After all, the Jews are 'pigs' and 'infidels,' the United States is the "Great Satan: etc.

Watch the movie 'Obsession' and judge the unedited, mainstream propaganda in the Arab world yourself.

It's brainwashing. What else could you call it?

I had already mentioned Tamil Tigers, who are explicitly anti-religious. The Kurdish PKK has roots in secular Marxist-Leninist ideology. There are other groups that are Islamic yet are not necessarily rooted in Islamic fundamentalism, such as al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Syrian National Socialist Party, Lebanese National Resistance Front, and others.

All examples given are Islamic = culture. The fact secularism or religious fundamentalism does not seem to play a role, emphasizes this point more so.

As far as we're talking propaganda, let's call a spade a spade: they do it in the name of nationalism and liberation.

Yes, 'blind' nationalism and "liberation" = brainwashing, fanaticism, radicalism, etc.

This is the critical point of this debate you have yet to concede.

If they had possession of enough nukes to do global damage, logic would dictate they don't need to resort to suicide terrorism any longer.

Terrorism is a tool; a means to an end. It does not define the objective. Your statement is illogical, and just to be fair, so is "the War on Terror."

I wasn't asking whether you accept it as right that many suicide terrorist groups hold significant moral influence over their communities; I was asking whether you accept it as true, at least in some cases.

I accept it as truth, but then would say the government isn't functional in these cases, referring to Iraq in this instance. Obviously the situation needs to be remedied.

Actually, the majority of the Lebanese population supports Hezbollah's fight with Israel. A majority of Palestinians has a good view of them as well. The Israel-Lebanon War of 2006 boosted Hezbollah's popularity even more.

This statement is laughable.

And you have yet to acknowledge the political assassinations, as well as other anti-democratic terrorist tactics taking place in that country in order for radical sects to consolidate power -- sponsored and directed by regional hegemonies in the region, naturally.

Once again, like Iraq, the fanatics are usurping Lebanon's democratic process and the will of the Lebanese people. If Hezbollah were as popular as you claimed, they wouldn't be resorting to such barbaric, undemocratic tactics would they?

And if you consider the Taliban's spirit as having been weakened between 9/11 and now, how do you reckon the U.S. has fared in its own spirit during the same time frame? At least the Taliban have time on their side, as you readily acknowledge.

Well, when your president lands on a aircraft carrier with a large "Mission Accomplished" sign in the background, not to mention "the war on terror" is a complete misnomer from the very beginning, I'm not surprised our spirit weakened a little.

Doesn't mean we won't prevail in the long term. We've been through worse.

Any war must have a clearly defined, focused, narrow military objective. It began with the WMD allegation leading the way, then spread to other, more vague justifications such as Saddam's dictatorship, plight of the Iraqi's, spreading democracy, and so on. The WMD's are no longer a factor; Saddam is no longer a factor; mission was "accomplished"; so what exactly is the "war" in which the US is currently involved? Unless you're talking about the kind of nation-building which Dick Cheney in his earlier years said would be a kind of "quagmire."

Dick said it, not I. I will get to the military objectives in a moment.

So on the one hand, these terrorists wouldn't hesitate to kill off their own children to achieve their ends, but somehow they would just buckle and give up if their families were kidnapped. I see.

Hehe, doesn't sound logical to you and I and the other discerning readers, does it? But remember, as I've been saying all along, we're not dealing with 'logical' human beings. Of course it would work. Why? Because the "infidels" would be doing the kidnapping -- 'infidels' are their illogical and emotional trigger. This is weakness we can exploit.

"Assuming" you had proof? Is there proof?

Depends on your personal definition of proof.

Iranian and Hezbollah agents meeting with insurgent leaders and a steady flow of weapons caches originating outside the country, for example. The Iraqis don't have the technical ability to construct many of these sophisticated IEDs and bombs, so someone is supplying them.

Find that someone and go after them.

The military may win battles, but can't by itself change political landscapes.

Disagree. After the fall of Saddam, the next clearly defined military objective was to secure the country: law and order. For some reason (for many reasons) this wasn't done.

You can't have political stability (or for that matter, economic prosperity) in an unsecured environment. Can't be done. Once Baghdad is secure, everything will fall into place.

And when winning the "war on terrorism" entails (as you've said) persuading the so-called moderates over to our side, you'd better believe politics is at the heart of any long-term solution.

I would argue our domestic politics play a more vital role along this front than what other leaders do on the international scene. Remember, the center of gravity of this war remains in the hands of the American people.

This war will be won (or lost) here at home, not in Iraq. We already are in agreement on this.

"Interests . . . [that] have absolutely no stake in an outcome favorable to most Iraqis." I could have sworn you were talking about the U.S. Wait, you were, weren't you.

If Iraq were to evolve into another Taliban-like landscape; another sanctuary terrorists from all over the ME could use to train and launch more attacks against the Western targets, you bet it would impact our national security -- therefore we the people have very stakes in this outcome -- regardless of our individual political affiliations.

 

[JinnRikki]

<CENTER>

</CENTER>

 

[nepenthe]

Of course there are social and environmental differences between the examples discussed.

The way in which you likened the VT incident to what goes on in suicide terrorism would utterly betray your now-admitted position as stated above.

This is not what we're debating.

On the contrary, this is exactly what is relevant to the issue, and exactly why your use of the term is inapplicable to suicide terrorists. It is inapplicable because the way in which you use "brainwashed" is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive - i.e. you have described suicide terrorists as brainwashed cults, and Islam as a brainwashed culture. You have also described suicide terrorists as "radicals," and stated they are but a "small minority" in their otherwise "moderate" community. There is a dichotomy here. In the context of a cult, brainwashing requires societal isolation at its forefront. In the context of a culture, brainwashing denotes mass-media propaganda to garner community-level support. Either suicide terrorists are engaging in propaganda in order to garner community support and are therefore not a "cult" as you have stated, or they are a cult and are therefore isolated from their own communities. Which is it?

The trait all these cases have most common is they are brainwashed -- i.e. suicide bombers make their decisions not in the self-interest, rather based on false data/input they are given etc.

I never mentioned that suicide terrorists make their decisions based on "self-interest," and self-interest isn't even part of the definition that you provide below:

Once again, to review:

brain·wash·ing

/ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ

ɪŋ, -ˌwɔ

ʃɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences. </td></tr></tbody></table>

I'll speak more on self-interest in just a moment.

Also, brain-washing, brain washing.

Pretty brood definition -- as opposed to Pape's very narrow somewhat illogical, intellectually dishonest, politically motivated definition.

No subjective, value-laden charges necessary, since you haven't backed up your position in this regard at all.

Let me give you just one example to support my argument. The median age in the Palestinian territories is 15 years old. The 'intellectuals' of that area have long cut their losses, packed up their families and left for greener pastures, because they recognize the situation for what it is: hopeless.

A minor aside. It is very difficult for Palestinians to leave their territories even if they wanted to. Many of them believe their situation to be hopeless, and feel powerless to do anything about it.

On the other hand, the mostly young fanatics who believe one day Israel will be "wiped off the map" in the name of Allah, stay and fight on.

See above. Many of them would leave if given the opportunity and a viable way of life elsewhere. But I'm sure there are others who would stay and fight on regardless. Which brings us to this:

Now I ask you, which position is more logical and favors the self-interest?

So, as promised, I'm back to talking about "self-interest" which, once again, neither I nor your dictionary ever mentioned. But I will address it nevertheless because it demonstrates a double-standard on your part, as well as an assumption you made about my position which is entirely unwarranted.

First of all, the double standard. You presume that the Palestinian situation is hopeless, which is after all only an opinion, and decide that the only logical, self-interested thing for the Palestinians to do would be to run away. A perfect example of cutting-and-running if there ever was one, except this one is even more extreme because they aren't retreating from another country, but retreating from their own. You know what's coming.

More and more U.S. citizens, indeed the majority, are becoming convinced that the situation in Iraq is hopeless, which is after all only an opinion, and decide that the only logical, self-interested thing for the Americans to do would be to run away. A perfect example of cutting-and-running if there ever was one, except at least they aren't running away from their own country.

I'll leave it to you to recognize the latent hypocrisy.

Second, your misplaced assumption about my position. I never claimed, nor do I now claim, that suicide terrorism is - or is meant to be - an act of self-interest. Therefore, you have created a strawman and argued - unsuccessfully at that - against said strawman. In fact, suicide terrorism is much closer to an act of altruism. The connotation of a term such as "altruism" may rub you the wrong way, but think of it rationally. There is no greater act of selflessness than sacrificing your own body for what you perceive to be in the interest of your own community / homeland / nation. It is little wonder why these terrorists are often hailed as martyrs by their community.

And, just in case you are feeling so inclined, please don't even begin going in the direction of they - are - not - really - altruistic - because - at - the - end - of - the - day - they - are - doing - what - they - want - to - do. By that definition, everyone is acting in their own self-interest and the term becomes meaningless.

Nobody could ever make a convincing case (as Pape is trying to do) suicide bombing is acting in the self-interest: brainwashing.

Hopefully now you understand that Pape has never claimed that suicide terrorism is an act of self-interest either. See above. You have misrepresented him again without knowing the facts.

Moreover, negotiations in search of a common ground and a lasting peace with these fanatics is utterly hopeless. After all, the Jews are 'pigs' and 'infidels,' the United States is the "Great Satan: etc.

Watch the movie 'Obsession' and judge the unedited, mainstream propaganda in the Arab world yourself.

It's brainwashing. What else could you call it?

About perceptions of "hopeless"...re-read the "double standard" section that I wrote above.

All examples given are Islamic = culture. The fact secularism or religious fundamentalism does not seem to play a role, emphasizes this point more so.

This passage does not make sense. The Tamil Tigers, for one, aren't even Islamic, and they have virtually pioneered modern suicide bombing, having engaged in a greater number of suicide bombings than any other single suicide terrorist organization.

Yes, 'blind' nationalism and "liberation" = brainwashing, fanaticism, radicalism, etc.

This is the critical point of this debate you have yet to concede.

No, this is the critical point of the debate whose scope and dimensions you have yet to figure out. Review the first part of the instant post.

Terrorism is a tool; a means to an end. It does not define the objective. Your statement is illogical, and just to be fair, so is "the War on Terror."

Let me make it easy and lay out how this particular segment of the debate started and progressed. It started with your following quote:

[Suicide terrorists] do pose a grave and global threat, should one of them ever be given a nuke.
On the other hand, the suicide bomber as an individual is nothing more than an instrument of terror...

to which I responded:

If they had possession of enough nukes to do global damage, logic would dictate they don't need to resort to suicide terrorism any longer.

Now let me explain the point of my response. I have already mentioned previously that suicide terrorism is a strategy that is used by those of inferior economic/technological/military might against those of vastly superior said might. I have also already mentioned that for this reason, suicide terrorism is very often a last resort. When you say that the suicide terrorists would be a global threat if given a nuke, you aren't saying anything meaningful as to suicide terrorism any longer.

All you're saying is that suicide terrorists would be a global threat if they had....right, more power. You might as well say something like this:

"They would be a global threat if they were provided with a large, secure land mass, top-of-the-line weaponry, an infinite pool of resources, and 100 zillion immortal guardian angels at their command."

and the illogical, irrelevant core reasoning of your statement would remain unchanged. Suicide terrorism occurs because said terrorists are severely underprivileged; if they were given an ultimate equalizer such as nuclear weapons, they would not engage in suicide terrorism any longer because they probably won't need to; therefore, they won't be suicide terrorists any longer.

But would you submit that suicide terrorists = Islamofascists in an attempt at refutation? If so, I've already told you - thrice - I think, - that this isn't true.

I accept it as truth, but then would say the government isn't functional in these cases, referring to Iraq in this instance. Obviously the situation needs to be remedied.

Ok, moving on..

This statement is laughable.

And you have yet to acknowledge the political assassinations, as well as other anti-democratic terrorist tactics taking place in that country in order for radical sects to consolidate power -- sponsored and directed by regional hegemonies in the region, naturally.

Once again, like Iraq, the fanatics are usurping Lebanon's democratic process and the will of the Lebanese people. If Hezbollah were as popular as you claimed, they wouldn't be resorting to such barbaric, undemocratic tactics would they?

You're confusing cause and effect. Hezbollah, at its inception, was an insignificant, unknown minority. It is precisely because Hezbollah engaged in resistance against Israel that they came to be recognized and popular amongst their community. It is precisely because they thwarted Israel's advances in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war that Hezbollah became even more popular.

Well, when your president lands on a aircraft carrier with a large "Mission Accomplished" sign in the background, not to mention "the war on terror" is a complete misnomer from the very beginning, I'm not surprised our spirit weakened a little.

Doesn't mean we won't prevail in the long term. We've been through worse.

This doesn't mean that we *should* go through worse to prevail, nor that it is the only, or best, way.

Dick said it, not I. I will get to the military objectives in a moment.

You don't agree with him?

Hehe, doesn't sound logical to you and I and the other discerning readers, does it?

It doesn't only sound not logical; it is not logical.

But remember, as I've been saying all along, we're not dealing with 'logical' human beings. Of course it would work. Why? Because the "infidels" would be doing the kidnapping -- 'infidels' are their illogical and emotional trigger. This is weakness we can exploit.

What I'm going to say here is a fairly central point and I will put up a subsequent post.

Depends on your personal definition of proof.

Sounds like relativism to me.

Iranian and Hezbollah agents meeting with insurgent leaders and a steady flow of weapons caches originating outside the country, for example. The Iraqis don't have the technical ability to construct many of these sophisticated IEDs and bombs, so someone is supplying them.

Find that someone and go after them.

It doesn't necessarily follow that someone is supplying them.

Disagree. After the fall of Saddam, the next clearly defined military objective was to secure the country: law and order. For some reason (for many reasons) this wasn't done.

You can't have political stability (or for that matter, economic prosperity) in an unsecured environment. Can't be done. Once Baghdad is secure, everything will fall into place.

What do you think it will take to "secure" the suicide terrorists? And we're back to square 1. Hopefully you will recall everything I've said since the beginning.

I would argue our domestic politics play a more vital role along this front than what other leaders do on the international scene. Remember, the center of gravity of this war remains in the hands of the American people.

This war will be won (or lost) here at home, not in Iraq. We already are in agreement on this.

What concerns me is that I'm not sure what you mean in your penultimate sentence above, or what that entails.

If Iraq were to evolve into another Taliban-like landscape; another sanctuary terrorists from all over the ME could use to train and launch more attacks against the Western targets, you bet it would impact our national security -- therefore we the people have very stakes in this outcome -- regardless of our individual political affiliations.

You can keep arguing that the U.S. has stakes in the outcome and you'd be preaching to the choir - the question is the methodology to be employed to this end.

 

[nepenthe]

And as promised, the subsequent post:

I've been not only saying, but demonstrating all along, that there is a "method to madness" when it comes to suicide terrorism. What you have been doing is dismissing them as a "small minority" unworthy of being given a "shit" about, while using other pejorative, unsupported value-laden epithets such as "brainwashed," "indoctrinated," "radical," "illogical," etc.

I am offering to show you that such willful ignorance and dismissal of what you simultaneously consider as a potential global threat are not going to result in being able to formulate an effective, winning strategy against the suicide terrorists.

Simply declaring without any empirical or deductive basis that they're illogical, brainwashed, crazy radicals and that we must "crush their spirits" is nothing more than false bravado and machismo not based on reality. To assume there is no method to the enemy's strategy likely means that you haven't studied them sufficiently and have not examined the way they think, operate, and strive towards their objectives. It likely means that you have underestimated them and continue underestimating them even as their influences grow larger and the domestic dissent becomes louder.

Never underestimate your enemy, no matter how seemingly small and pathetic. The enemies have been studying suicide terrorism for decades, figuring out how it works, when it works, against what kind of enemy it is likely to work, what the risks and rewards are, etc. In the meantime, most of the rest of us hasn't bothered to study the enemies' methods, instead choosing to conveniently label them, and your viewpoints are a good example of that hubris and the overall results thus far, when one puts 2 and 2 together, shouldn't be that surprising.